Resolution vs. Musicality

[Gregadd]

IMO some tweaks are a solution in search of a.problem.

 

[Cellcbern]

While all of the above points may have validity, within the context of this thread and my post #56 in it, I was referring to the specific case where the tweaks were successful at removing noise, i.e., they worked, and as a result of less noise other problems became more apparent.

 

[Cellcbern]

Hi microstrip,
If you’re saying that a lot of tweaks don't always work optimally i would completely agree. The secret is to understand what problem you are trying to solve and the way a particular device addresses it. Let‘s take an amplifier and vibration control as an example. The amplifier is fed 120v or 230V AC which it must convert to DC. To do that requires a transformer and a rectifier. Both these devices vibrate. At the same time the amp must sit on a support which itself picks up vibration from the room floor. So if you only add a tweak to isolate the amp from room floor vibrations you trap the internal vibrations inside the amp’s chassis. If on the other hand you were to add a tweak to ground those internal vibrations into the support structure then you provide a pathway for ground borne vibration to enter the amp. What is actually needed is a way to isolate the amp from vibration in 1 direction, while providing a pathway to ground vibration in the other direction. So if you use wooden blocks to ground the amp it‘ll probably sound worse, ditto something like sorbothane footers for isolation. But if you use a footer specifically designed to isolate in 1 direction and convert vibration to heat or work in the other, you’ll hear improved sound. Does that mean that wooden blocks are useless? if the amp happened to be sitting on a rack shelf that was itself isolated and provided a means to convert vibration, like the Symposium shelf for example then a wooden block or similar would be exactly the required tweak. Horses for courses as the old expression goes.
I find your assertion that tweaks add noise interesting. Which particular tweaks are you thinking about here? Are they genuinely adding noise, or only when they are misapplied as in the above examples?

When it comes to vibrations/resonances at least two things are necessary-for optimal performance: 1) isolation from floorborne and airborne vibrations, and 2) “draining” and/or tuning component resonances. #2 is more complicated than it may sound. You can provide a path for Internally generated resonances to “drain” out of a component and be absorbed/dissipated (e.g., Stillpoints) or you can “tune” the resonances so they are more “sympathetic” to the music. Companies like Yamamoto and Combak Harmonix use tonewoods alone or in combination with metals to create tuning feet. I have heard both work well but it is trial and error. Different components react differently to both approaches. There is a third approach (e.g., Dalby Lignum Vitae and ASI Top Line feet) which uses tone woods and metals in a footer that appears to be designed to drain/absorb resonances but to my ears at least also tunes a component’s resonant signature to make it more natural sounding and musical. Not sure how these work but they are the best I have encountered, producing the clarity that Stillpoints achieve without the analytical signature Stillpoints can impart. I have read that the tiny pores in some woods can absorb resonances and convert them to heat. If that’s true then even a simple Yamamoto ebony cone/cup may be draining a little as well as tuning. I find these very effective by the way on less expensive equipment and use them on all of my AV system components. Note that Dalby describes the big Lignum Vitae and Ebony discs that they use in their feet as resonance “reservoirs” and says nothing about tuning. Interesting stuff.

 

[Lee]

My exposure to more upper end gear the past few years has taught me that resolution and musicality are complementary factors, not opposing factors.

 

[microstrip]

My exposure to more upper end gear the past few years has taught me that resolution and musicality are complementary factors, not opposing factors.

Unfortunately usually you have to pay more to increase both. it is the usual case where we have a compromise between two conflicting requirements - please note I am not telling they are opposing. The improve both you need more resources or knowledge - both have a price in this hobby.

 

[microstrip]

Hi microstrip,
If you’re saying that a lot of tweaks don't always work optimally i would completely agree. The secret is to understand what problem you are trying to solve and the way a particular device addresses it. Let‘s take an amplifier and vibration control as an example. The amplifier is fed 120v or 230V AC which it must convert to DC. To do that requires a transformer and a rectifier. Both these devices vibrate. At the same time the amp must sit on a support which itself picks up vibration from the room floor. So if you only add a tweak to isolate the amp from room floor vibrations you trap the internal vibrations inside the amp’s chassis. If on the other hand you were to add a tweak to ground those internal vibrations into the support structure then you provide a pathway for ground borne vibration to enter the amp. What is actually needed is a way to isolate the amp from vibration in 1 direction, while providing a pathway to ground vibration in the other direction. So if you use wooden blocks to ground the amp it‘ll probably sound worse, ditto something like sorbothane footers for isolation. But if you use a footer specifically designed to isolate in 1 direction and convert vibration to heat or work in the other, you’ll hear improved sound. Does that mean that wooden blocks are useless? if the amp happened to be sitting on a rack shelf that was itself isolated and provided a means to convert vibration, like the Symposium shelf for example then a wooden block or similar would be exactly the required tweak. Horses for courses as the old expression goes.

You assume your mechanisms are full bandwidth and have perfect behavior - something that does not exist. Unless we fully understand and document exactly what we need we will be just repeating marketing literature - unfortunately the device you refer also does not exist. And amplifiers are a lot more than just a power transformer.

I find your assertion that tweaks add noise interesting. Which particular tweaks are you thinking about here? Are they genuinely adding noise, or only when they are misapplied as in the above examples?

The Nordost Qpoint's I am trying in my system - been thinking about them for sometime, after reading Mike Lavigne posts I took the decision!

Shielding a signal cable reduces electrical noise - but many times degrades perceived sound quality. Also, long ago I got some equipment that had been tweaked with a damping component - I had to clean it all, as it made it sound lifeless.

BTW do you consider microphony as noise?

 

[fbhifi]

I sure am glad I did not name my system thread “Musical Sound“.

I could have written sentences like this: “I was listening to music on my new audio system today. After spending weeks to fine-tune the set up, it sounded musical and I was musically satisfied.

In the end, if one is willing to take a break from the analysis of the exact color and density of the bark on the trees and step back and view the forest and beyond, isn’t this really what we are all trying to do?

 

[PeterA]

In the end, if one is willing to take a break from the analysis of the exact color and density of the bark on the trees and step back and view the forest and beyond, isn’t this really what we are all trying to do?

I think it is hard to say. People approach this hobby in all sorts of ways. I want to listen to music now. I find the higher the degree of (natural) resolution, the more I enjoy the music, regardless of how far back I step to hear it.

 

[fbhifi]

I think it is hard to say. People approach this hobby in all sorts of ways. I want to listen to music now. I find the higher the degree of (natural) resolution, the more I enjoy the music, regardless of how far back I step to hear it.

Is this now going to open up the whole mid hall, front of hall debate…..

 

[Atmasphere]

I think it is hard to say. People approach this hobby in all sorts of ways. I want to listen to music now. I find the higher the degree of (natural) resolution, the more I enjoy the music, regardless of how far back I step to hear it.

I see resolution and musicality is being the same. I often use 'musically resolving' to be more specific. I don't see equipment that is incapable of resolution and somehow being musical, unless its being used as a musical instrument, for example a guitar effects pedal. This is really all about distortion; distortion masks detail and distortion can often be amusical (if its higher ordered distortion, or intermodulations).

Put another way, you know you're on the right path when a change renders greater detail (resolution) and more musical presentation (likely because the sound is less harsh/bright; smoother).

 

[PeterA]

Is this now going to open up the whole mid hall, front of hall debate…..

Certainly not, fbhifi. I was just enjoying and playing off of your choice of words with the woods. I sit in my listening seat and enjoy the recorded listening perspective. I want the system to have minimum influence over that.

 

[microstrip]

I think it is hard to say. People approach this hobby in all sorts of ways. I want to listen to music now. I find the higher the degree of (natural) resolution, the more I enjoy the music, regardless of how far back I step to hear it.

Peter,

Poor resolution, it could not escape from being nicknamed natural(TM) and non-natural (TM) ...
I find curious you seem to object to such audiophile words, but can't resist using them, fueling their use!

 

[microstrip]

I see resolution and musicality is being the same. I often use 'musically resolving' to be more specific. I don't see equipment that is incapable of resolution and somehow being musical, unless its being used as a musical instrument, for example a guitar effects pedal. This is really all about distortion; distortion masks detail and distortion can often be amusical (if its higher ordered distortion, or intermodulations).

Put another way, you know you're on the right path when a change renders greater detail (resolution) and more musical presentation (likely because the sound is less harsh/bright; smoother).

IMHO using extreme cases does not help a discussion. No one is addressing equipment incapable of resolution.

Systems can have degrees of resolution and musicality and I do not see they go on par. IMHO musicality is extremely subjective and dependent on preference. Resolution is much less subjective and can be easily compared or even quantified.

 

[fbhifi]

Certainly not, fbhifi. I was just enjoying and playing off of your choice of words with the woods. I sit in my listening seat and enjoy the recorded listening perspective. I don't want the system to have minimum influence over that.

peter, my tongue was firmly in cheek when I wrote the “woods” post. Was just trying to point out that the real discoveries may actually come from enjoying the whole rather than analyzing the parts.

 

[Atmasphere]

IMHO using extreme cases does not help a discussion. No one is addressing equipment incapable of resolution.

Systems can have degrees of resolution and musicality and I do not see they go on par. IMHO musicality is extremely subjective and dependent on preference. Resolution is much less subjective and can be easily compared or even quantified.

Of course! I was using hyperbole to make my point.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

Poor resolution, it could not escape from being nicknamed natural(TM) and non-natural (TM) ...
I find curious you seem to object to such audiophile words, but can't resist using them, fueling their use!

Is "natural" an audiophile word? It seems a common word that even children and non audiophiles use. People know what it means, but not some audiophiles. I'm sure your students know too, despite your efforts to confuse the meaning. I have borrowed the expression "natural resolution" to relate it to what we hear from live instruments in space and to distinguish it from what some consider going too far into the analytical.

 

[stehno]

Sounds like you would like to define "resolution" to include musicality, which would be different from the historical definition.

IMO, historic definitions in high-end audio should all be up for grabs.

Here's why that doesn't work. Whatever you might want to add to the category "resolution", it still centers on the extent to which the detail available in the medium is mined and accurately reproduced.

Well said.

With a great recording more resolution (i.e., retrieving more of the available information) might result in more musicality (realistic timbres, emotional content, etc.). However with a less than great recording, even of a great performance, more resolution can result in less musicality and listening pleasure because more of the "warts" are being highlighted.

Not so well said. You seem to imply that a resolving system mines deeper into superior recordings than it does inferior recordings or vice versa. That ought not be the case nor ought there be any evidence to support your claim. Nor does it seem logical as a system's current level of resolution should not discriminate between a recording's quality of engineering.

A system's current resolution level (ability to mine) should generally be a constant and is entirely based on what you've acquired and what you've done / not done with altering your playback system in any fashion. That is, aside from some commonly known changes like late night cleaner AC or lesser known changes like little mechanical settling in improvements that we're unaware of. Moreover, its ability to "mine" a recording is based on a constant percentage level. For example. Your playback system is not mining an inferior-engineered recording at 50% and then mining a superior recording at say 70% or vice versa. Rather, it should be mining every recording at the same constant percentage rate regardless of engineering quality.

That said, it is incorrect to think that the more superior-engineered a given recording is, your playback system's current level of resolution will increase one iota. That is illogical and unrealistic. Regardless of recording quality, your system's current level of resolution remains a constant at least until you perform your next system alteration.

As such, there is and should be a direct correlation between one's due diligence toward their system and a system's level of resolution, and subsequently the level of musicality one hears during playback. None of which is based on a given recording's quality of engineering. If one possessed a truly resolving system and listened to a POS recording, that POS recording would still sound more musical than when played back on a less resolving system. Every time.

Of course, the bad news is that a recording's level of engineering quality is entirely outside most of our scopes. But the good news is that it is well within our scope to configure a highly-resolving playback system to get the very most musicality from each and every recording. If we so choose.

I have experienced this in my own system.

Doubtful. At least not as you describe it. Again, supposedly greater resolution translating to a less musical playback presentation is and should be an oxymoron. I suspect you (and others) either have an odd understanding of truly greater resolution, a truly musical presentation, or perhaps both.

For a decade I owned Merlin VSM speakers, the resolution of which was frequently compared to electrostatics. The speakers were called "ruthlessly revealing" by several reviewers, and I found this to be true. With a well recorded sacd for example they were revelatory. I heard detail and nuance in familiar recordings I had never heard before along with outstanding musicality. However when I played anything that wasn't superbly recorded the superior resolution was a curse. Much of my collection became unlistenable.

Been there, done that. But that was a long time ago. There was a time when the majority of my software library was not worth listening to. But today, it probably amounts to maybe 3 or 5% of my library. BTW, so-called ruthlessly revealing, warts, etc. presentation is not a curse. Rather, it's actually a cry for help that a system still has areas that require significant attention. Nothing more. But this truth only applies to those willing to perform due diligence to continually improve their playback system's level of resolution. For those unwilling to improve their systems, I suppose one might consider it a curse.

My Ars Aures F1 monitors by contrast were much more forgiving. They didn't retrieve all of the detail that the Merlins did but because of their voicing were more musical and enjoyable over a much broader range of recordings. In this case the less resolving component was more musical, something I've experienced many times over the 40+ years I've been an audiophile.

Sounds like you're painting the classic scenario that a less-resolving component, speaker, and/or system somehow translates to a more musical presentation. Think of the popular phrase "too detailed" which also is illogical. In reality, this is actually an oxymoron and yet another popular preconceive narrative in high-end audio. It's not more forgiving, it's actually more coloration / less musical. Yes, when a system is less resolving it masks more of the musical detail as you mention but it also masks more of the corruption (distortions) making the presentation more tolerable. I would not call this scenario more musical when it's actually less fatiguing / more bearable - which some may call more musical. Then again, I suppose anything that's less fatiguing is in an odd way considered a bit more musical. But IMO, labeling this scenario as "more musical" is entirely misleading and in several ways. But such are the benefits of following preconceived narratives.

IMO, there is a direct correlation between a truly highly-resolving playback system and the level of musicality we hear in the room. That's because the more truly resolving a playback system, the more music info we hear from a given recording regardless of its engineering quality. In contrast, less resolving implies less music info we hear.

 

[Gregadd]

Liked; "...ability to"mine".."

 

[Lee]

Unfortunately usually you have to pay more to increase both. it is the usual case where we have a compromise between two conflicting requirements - please note I am not telling they are opposing. The improve both you need more resources or knowledge - both have a price in this hobby.

Yes, which is why I added "upper end" gear.

 

[wil]

Stehno, you make a good argument here and it makes sense to me up to a point. But while a highly resolving system exposes more of what exists to be mined from the recording, when that recording has flaws, those flaws will be a detriment to the appreciation of the music. So, for instance if the string section is perfectly miked but the brass section is too closely miked, the highly resolving system will present the strings beautifully and horns will sound like shite. I think it's hard to argue that will result in a higher level of musicality during playback.

That being said, I'm not saying a lower resolving, or additionally a dynamically flattened compromise, would be better (even if possibly easier to listen to) for such a flawed recording, only that this recording is severely compromised in any case.